Human Rights and Disability A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions In this case, the young man had been registered with the Employment Agency since 2002 yet it was alleged he had no access to general technical, continuous and vocational guidance and training programs, or to placement services, and that where he had been able to access vocational training through private means, the Employment Agency refused to pay for his participation. Further, it was raised that the Employment Agency did not provide any support or assistance when looking for a job: where he had applied for positions and was interviewed, upon contacting the Employment Agency, potential employers turned down his application. The Committee found that the existing model for the provision of integration subsidies did not effectively promote the employment of persons with disabilities. It found in particular that there are difficulties faced by potential employers when trying to access the integration subsidy for the employment of a person with disabilities and that the administrative complexities put applicants in disadvantageous position. This may in turn result in indirect discrimination. The Committee therefore concluded that the integration subsidies scheme, as applied in this case, was not in accordance with the State party’s obligations under article 27(1)(h), read together with article 3(a), (b), (c) and (e), article 4(1)(a) and article 5(1) of the Convention. Zsolt Bujdosó and five others v Hungary (no. 4/2011) On 9 September 2013, the Committee adopted its views in this case which concerned six persons with intellectual disabilities whose names had been removed from the electoral register upon being placed under guardianship, in accordance with the Constitution. As a result, they had been denied the right to vote in parliamentary and municipal elections in 2010, in violation of articles 29 and 12 of the Convention. While the State party claimed that this automatic denial of the right to vote of persons under guardianship had been remedied through the abandonment of the Constitutional provision and the passing of legislation which permitted courts to individually assess one’s capacity to vote during guardianship proceedings, the Committee recalled that article 29 does not foresee any reasonable restriction, nor does it allow any exception for any group of persons with disabilities. Hence, an exclusion of the right to vote on the basis of a perceived or actual psychosocial or intellectual disability, including a restriction pursuant to an individualised assessment, constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability. The Committee concluded that the State party failed to comply with its obligations under article 29, read alone and in conjunction with article 12 of the Convention. This is the Committee’s first decision on a communication relating to article 29. It reinforces the Committee’s concluding observations on the subject and emphasises that judicial capacity assessments on an individual’s right to vote are discriminatory in nature and cannot be advanced as a justification to preserve the integrity of the State’s political system. It further clarifies that any reading of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Alajos Kiss v Hungary (Application no. 38832/06, 20 May 2010), which suggests that one’s right to vote can be legitimately removed on the basis of an individualised judicial evaluation, is not in compliance with articles 29 and 12 of the Convention. Szilvia Nyusti & Péter Takács v Hungary (no. 1/2010) On 16 April 2013, the Committee adopted its views in an individual communication lodged against Hungary. The case was brought by two Hungarian nationals with visual impairments who had separately concluded contracts for private account services with OTP bank. Despite the obligation for them to pay the same level of fees as other OTP clients, they were denied access on an equal basis with others to the use of their banking services and transactions on account of OTP’s inaccessible ATMs, which lacked Braille fonts, audible instructions and voice assistance. The Committee found a violation of article 9(2)(b); that the State party failed to comply with its obligation to ensure accessible banking services for persons with visual impairments, including those provided by OTP and other private financial institutions. 68